To:
Lincoln Magistrates Court
The Court House
: 358 High Street
: Lincoln
: LN5 7QA
li-lincolnmcadmin@justice.gov.uk
Appeal (under Article 35 of the Order) against an enforcement notice served (under
Article 30 of the Order)
Ground 1 most of the alleged deficiencies are false.
ground 2 All of the matter of enforcement are clearly not deemed to be worthy of an enforcement notice. A simple letter could be issued instead. Enforcement notices should be issued only under very serious circumstances. What is referred to in the enforcement notice are mostly minor issues that are treated only will a letter asking to take corrective action. This is almost always resolved informally , and not with a formal legal document. In this case this is issued frivolously as a vindictive measure only . I already showed my willingness to comply with whatever requests made on the day and I communicated very clearly that no matter what the requests I would have complied based on the threats made of closure of the dwelling house (using a prohibition notice). I was notified over the phone of the impending enforcement notice once I tried to find clarification on why fridges in a dwelling house are not permitted because, according to the officer they cause risk to life. This is apparently because they were in a fire escape route and even if they clearly did NOt obstruct any exit they would kill people. Thereofore my compliance was demonstrated and there was not reason other than assertion of power to issue a formal enforcement notice. This can be corroborated also with the comparison to other enforcement notices issued to HMO in Lincoln. This can be obtained using the statutory Freedom of information act request.
Ground 3 almost none of the requests in this enforcement notice are justified by mentioning the relevant legislation. Any requirent needs to be corroborated by showing exerts of either law, case law, peer reviewd studies, or British standards. This is not done all throughout. For example when stating that a metal circuit breaker board cannot be placed in a fire escape , no reference to the relevant law is made. All requests are mere statements not justified by either evidence , legislation or even common sense at times. Each of the points requested need to make reference to the relevant legislation, this means that not only the relevant article and paragraph has to be mentioned but also an excerpt of the relevant law needs to be produced for the request to be credible. For example in the case of fireboard not allowed in a fire escape there should be a excerpt of the relevant legislation clearly stating this. For example based on Article so and so “no fuseboard is allowed in a fire escape route, and if it it there it must be enclosed by 30 minutes fire proofing” (this is an example only).
Ground 4. The officer seems to be confused and had not realized that these is a private dwelling house, not a business. To access dwelling houses without consent there are a number of legal requirements not even contemplated by the officer. Those legal requirements for entry into a dwelling house are not necessary for businesses. This mis application of business legislation permeated throughout this document including the main body of the email. The premises is a SINGLE dwelling house, not block of flats or a business. Although this is an HMO the law and the high courts have established, this is still a SINGLE dwelling-house, not a business. The relevant legislation and protections are reserved to dwelling houses that are not reserved to businesses. We do not have any employees inside the dwelling house and the Vague reference to legislation is made in this enforcement notice is only applicable to a Business not SINGLE dwelling houses. To any of the requirements of the enforcement notice reference is made to legislation and guidance pertaining businesses and not dwelling houses. The incorrect legislation is mostly applied and it is not fit to dwelling houses but it is fit to businesses with employees and not tenants. Therefore the enforcement notice is, blatantly incorrect in terms of the application of the relevant legislation alone, notwithstanding the points made above and below.
Ground 5 Also since almost all points could be resolved with a simple letter Misusing these legal tools, undermines the credibility of the institution who issued it. This causes a legal document that could lead in theory to a successful prosecution for minor issues.
Ground 6 My allegation of points made in the enforcement notice as being minor issue can be corroborated by the issuance of a freedom of information Act request. This will uncover the conduct of any authority and place this single enforcement within the wider way of conducting their duty. Under the freedom of information Act we can request and obtain also all correspondence via email and letter of each officer within the this authority jurisdiction. This FOA request could easily. Unfortunaletly due to time scale this information is not available at present but can be obtained if necessary.
Ground 7 This enforcement notice is used as a tool to assert to her personal power of the officer only and nothing else, and certainly it is very clear not used for public interest , if it were for public interest a simple letter would have been issued and it would not have wasted public funds and time. The enforcement notice is full of false statements as we will see below.
Ground 8 When rarely the use of relevant British standards is made, It is not mentioned the exerpt of the relevant art of the British standard. This is very likely to cause the person subject to the enforcement notice to be placed in a difficult situation. British stands as not available to the public for easy access. The access is granted after paying a fee that varies between 100 and 200 pounds per standard. If the officer’s intention wer really to provide help to safeguard the public the officer would have have sent an excerpt for the relevant part of the British standards available so that relevant person could comply easily. This is not done and we speculate this is not done deliberately like in the case of the British standards for fire doors. We would need to pay 200 pounds to read it . If the officer really meant to help us the officer would have made this information available instead of being vague of their gap requirement between the fire door and the door frame. Therefore, things are kept vague and no help is made in order to access the relevant information.
Below in bold are our comments:
In the body of the email.
“Further guidance is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-safety-your-responsibilities
https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/business-fire-safety ”
The legal definition of an HMO is a private dwelling house, it is not a business or workplace.
“DEFICIENCY – Article 8(1) (b)
You have failed to take ‘general fire precautions’ to ensure the safety of persons who are not your
Employees, ‘general fire precautions’ in relation to premises means:
(a) Measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the
premises;” False no reasoning or proof provided. The fire panel and fire alarm system are functioning and well maintained. No faults have been reported for over two years. This is a dwelling house, and it is FALSE that there are any employees onsite. Incorrect legislation applied.
“(b) Measures in relation to the means of escape from the premises;” False, all escape routes were always clear. This can be proven with video evidence if needed in the relevant setting.
“(c) Measures for securing that, at all material times, the means of escape can be safe and
Effectively used;” False. The main escape route was clear and so was the secondary escape route going into the backyard. This is also confirmed during the phone conversation with the officer who allegedly wrote this enforcement notice. This is all made up. The officer over the phone mentioned that life was at risk because the communal passageway which I do not own was obstructed. Also, I caused danger because I failed to install emergency lights on the building belonging to 65 Canwick road. I tried multiple times (on record) to inform the officer that the main exit route was clear and one exit route is sufficient. I: also noted that the back exit route was also clear because it led into the backyard. However, the officer said that life was in danger because, although the main fire exit to the fromt of the house was clear and the second was clear too, since the outdoor passageway that did not belong to me was obstructed I was causing risk to life.Once again to be clear she admitted herself that the fire escape route to the front was clear and the one to the backyard was clear too but since therewas another passageway even if it did not belong to me I am legally responsible to keep it clear and install emergency light on a property that did not belong to me. Once agiain she said I am legally obliged to install equipment and maintain property that does not belong to me even if there are other clear routes that lead to the outside of the property to safety.
When I asked to send ne the relevant legislation or any case law to prove it the officer became annoyed. The officer never sent any proof of their argument and allegations. . To this day, the officer has failed to provide proof of LAW to explain claims
The fire officer failed to provide the relevant case law she mentioned on the phone and, as an alternative, she issued an enforcement notice where neither reference to relevant law is mentioned nor the relevant case law is provided. Once again I maintain that I am able to prove that both the fire exists were Clear and free use prior and after attendance without the relevant court order to enter the dwellings.
(d) Measures in relation to the means for fighting fires on the premises; The fire blanket is now in place , but to the best of our knowledge no other HMO is required to have the tenants to use fire fighting equipment like fire extinguishers. a Fire blanket is sufficient. A simple letter would have sufficed to accomplish this and , the enforcement notice has been clearly abused and misused.
(e) Measures in relation to the means for detecting fire on the premises and giving warning in
case of fire on the premises; and False the Grade A fire detention system was fully functioning at the time and it is still to this day.
(f) Measures in relation to the arrangements for action to be taken in the event of fire on the
premises, including –
(i) Measures relating to the instruction and training of employees; and NO employees on PAYE are NOT on site. This is a dwelling house.
(ii) Measures to mitigate the effects of the fire. Please specify those measures. All fire detection systems had been working consistently.Both fire escapes were clear.
DEFICIENCY – Article 9(1)
For the purposes of identifying the measures required in order to comply with Article 9 (1) of the
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the ‘Responsible Person’ must carry out a suitable and
sufficient fire risk assessment. Where five or more people are employed, the premises are licensed
or an alterations notice requiring it is in force, then the significant findings of the fire risk
assessment, the actions to be taken as a result of the assessment and details of anyone especially at
risk must be recorded.assessment has not been carried out. False. This was already in place and submitted to the council prior to the application for the Hmo license. This was carried out by Andreas Russo (the writer) and should my competence be challenged, this will be defended in any relevant courts.
DEFICIENCY – Article 11(1) & (2)
• An emergency plan has not been prepared. This could be requested using an informal letter not an enforcement notice. Another misuse of enforcement notice.
DEFICIENCY – Article 13(3) (a)
Measures for fire-fighting in the premises are inadequate to protect ‘relevant persons’ from the risk
of fire.
• No fire-fighting equipment is provided ie. Extinguishers or fire blankets. This could be requested using an informal letter not an enforcement notice. Another misuse of enforcement notice. Fire blankets are ok but fire extinguishers not a requirement, according to other fire risk assessors no block of flats and dwellinghouses (HMOS) have the requirement to put in place fire extinguishers because the dwelling house or dwelling houses cannot have a onsite permanent employee to be trained on their safe use. We can check how many HMOS have been formally required to install fire extinguishers.
Emergency Routes and Exits
DEFICIENCY – Article 14(1)
In the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely
as possible. False . The premises had top fire escapes completely cleared at the time of the visit .
The escape routes did not meet this requirement because a 30-minute protected route is
required. false , the two fire routes are protected by 30 minutes fire-resistant fire doors with autoclosers and intumescence strips.
The protected route should be maintained free of any obstructions and/or fire risks.
1. There atre fridge freezers plugged in on the escape route. Correct , however these fridges underneath the staircase at no point obstructed any fire exit. They were well out of the way. This was also confirmed over the phone by the fire officer. At that point the fire officer said that the fridges being in a fire excape c even if they are not in the way to obstruct any exit they could kill people. I asked please show me the law that statess that . She mentioned one and I read it while on the phone with her and I pointed out that the law she refferred to did not mention that fridges can kill people or are not allowwed in a fire exit. At that point she grew even more angry since she was found that I was challanging her successfully. Her anger peaked when I said “well then the banister is made of wood and so is the staircase. therefore they should be removed too” At that point she said ” I will send you an enforcement notice and you can deal with it with your legal team” . In the enmforcement notice of course as you can see no justification using law, case law , independent peer reviewd studies are made in connection with the fridges of course. Fridges are a safe item present in All dewllinghouses, If this claim is based on the argument that the fridges in the event of a fire can combust as kill people hence, without any solid law, caselaw, peer reviewed papers anyone can come around and say they the emergency lights can kill people since they can combust in the event of a fire and, especially the battery will explode in the event of a fire and kill people in the emergency exit. This applies to light switches in any hallway (fire escape) they should not exist and if they exist they should be enclosed therefore in a 30 minute fire proof enclosure. The staircase in the event of a fire will kill people too since over 90 percent of staircases in HMOs are made of wood. Of course, no pictures or portraits are allowed on afire escape etc etc etc. I finally want to point out that I gave the order to remove those fridges anyway and this was done immediately. However, to this day no justification with law, case law, peer reviewed studies have been made. I find it hard to accept only an argument and no other solid legal justification because anyone can come around and being unreasonable cause trouble based only onr arguments. And to be clear at this point (you can read this enforcement notice yourself) no clear justification withi reference to legislation has been made.
2. Electric meters or distribution boards should not be located on escape routes. If this is
unavoidable, they should be enclosed in fire resisting construction. No mention to legislation is made here. Please confirm how this is a legal requirement. This is a mere statement not corroborated by any reference to relevant legislation or British standards , NOTHING. We note that the distribution board it is referred to is made of METAL. Metal is not flammable and the only flammable items is the wringing insulation. The wiring insulation cannot cause any serious fires unless is in contact with any flammable materials. The electrical distribution board is made of metal NON-FLAMMMABLE MATERIAL. The proposal in this enforcement notice is to enclose a non-flammable item into a fire casing. The fire casing is generally made of wood like the fire doors are. This causes two issue 1 increased risk of fire because the only source of combustible material would be the wood of the fire casing, 2 form time to tome some tenant could decide de to store teams in the fire casing f the distribution board, ( in case there is not fierce casing this cannot happen. 3 the fire casing restricts the main fire exit, adding risk of fire and not providing any benefit. If we install this fire casing any damage due to fire in the fire casing will be attributed to the fire officers’ enforcement notice and any legal claim both civil and criminal attributed to the fire authorities.
But if the metal fuseboard pose risk to life because metal and copper can magically ignite, how about the materies in the emergency lights, their internal battery ycan explode and kill people, they are mede out of plastic which maybe combusts more than metal and copper. Also how abou the danger to life posed by the fire pannel. The fire panel also shouldn’t be in a fire escape because it is made of plastic and it can kill people during a fire. Morepver the fire panel has two internal batteries that can explode and kill people. More over the fire pane has a AC to Dc internal transformer which itself can set on fire and cause the two batteries of the fire panel to explode.
In reality the Fire panel needs to be on a fire route of course and uncovered so that people can hear the panel beeping when a fault in the system occurs. This is the danger to base requirements out of thin air, and not justifying with law or anything else, they become not credible and grotesque.
becasue theyh are on a fire escape how about
3. External escape routes should receive routine inspection and maintenance to ensure they
remain suitable for use. It is noted that this area was cleared immediately after the visit
Fire Safety Risk Assessment Guide Reference
We do not own any external escape route. The building above the external escape route it is owned by 65 Canwick Rd. No mention as how the law is requiring me to maintain other peoples properties is mentioned there, of course. N o mention tony relevant case law were the responsible person is required to maintain any third party’s property or shared property. As i mentioned one fire route out of the building is suffictint , There is an extra no through the kitchen those lead to the back and and these two are enough. The enforcement notice fails to justify with law my liability for other peoples properties, other peoples , action and fails to prove my responsibility to maintain a property that is shared and a property above that is owned by other people. I would require formal permission to maintain other people;s property. On top of it even if the opposing way owned by third parties were owned by me a single fire escape would suffice byte there are two. Still to this day the officer failed to provide any reference to legislation and / or case law where I would be liable for other peoples properties and shared passageways. Over the phone, the fie officer mentioned that I had to install emergency light in this lass way whose building belongs to 65 canwick rd and I have the legal duty to maintain it. not justification was made with law or care law for this statement.
1. The fire alarm system is inadequately maintained. False please provide evidence. working and in order. It is clear that the officer does not have any knowledge of grade A fire alarm stems,. Grade A fire alarm systems check the entire system every 30 dseinds, This check included the functionality of each detector and call point int he system. If any is faulty an alarm will appear on the main panel and this alarm is accompanied by a very loud annoying beeping. The fire panel was fully funding and in check a t the time of the visit.
2. The emergency lighting is inadequately maintained. False please provide evidence. working and in order.I certainly tested it soon after the visit and this was still in perfect order.
1. Fire alarm
The control and indicating equipment should be checked at least every 24 hours to ensure there are
no specific faults. Please note that we are not aware of this legal requirement. no reference to law of case law is made for this requirement. Grace A fire alarm panels self check the system every 30 seconds. If a fault occur the panel start making a very annoying beeping noise and the occupiers are unable to cope with this noise, hence they contact management. It seems clear the fire officer does not have any knowledge of the way grade A fireplaces and systems operate.
2. Emergency lighting
Daily – Indicators of central power supply should be visually inspected for correct operation. This could be requested using an informal letter not an enforcement notice. Another misuse of enforcement notice. No reference to law or British standards is made here. This requirement is based on a statement. A Freedom of Information Act request could clarify how many HMOS in Lincoln City have had the same request using a formal enforcement notice or an informal letter informing of this daily requirement. Please daily requirements of this types based on ho they are required to be done may render the running of a domestic dwelling not viable. This type of request is more appropriate to a business where there are trained personnel on site daily, not a domestic dwelling were there is no employees onsite. Employees can be reasonably trained , not tenants. If the requirement is to have a maintenance person daily to perform this stank I am stating with conviction that this is not a viable proposition for domestic dwellings and nobody else is doing it, not only in Lincoln any throughout the country. A freedom of Information act request can further prove this point easily.
Monthly – Simulate power failure to normal lighting for a period sufficient to ensure that each lamp
is illuminated. During this period, all luminaries and signs shall be checked to ensure that they are
present, clean and functioning correctly. At the end of this test period, the supply to the normal
lighting should be restored and any indicator lamp or device checked to ensure that it is showing that
the normal supply has been restored. DONE. This is done using the dedicated key switches which were installed exactly for this type of test. Key switch only power the emergency lights so that this test can be performed without interfering with the rest of the electrical appliances in the house. Switches only feed the emergency lights for this purpose only. I know this because I design, and commission these systems since 2010
Annually – As for the monthly check, but for the full rated duration of the emergency lights (normally)
3 hours for this type of premise, further details if required are available from BS 5266-1). Because of
the possibility of the failure of normal lighting occurring shortly after this test, then wherever possible
this test should be performed while the building is empty, at times of minimal risk or alternate
luminaires tested at any one time so that the building has a charged luminare next to the unit under
test. These precautions are needed because the emergency lighting system is not fully functional until
the batteries have had time to recharge following their discharge.
Depending on your type of installation, you should be able to carry out most of the routine tests
yourself. DONE. This is done using the dedicated key switches which were installed exactly for this type of test. Key switch only power the emergency lights so that this test can be performed without interfering with the rest of the electrical appliances in the house. the keyswitch only feed the emergency lights for this purpose only. I know this because I design, and commission these systems since 2010
DEFICIENCY – Article 17(1)
The premises and any facilities, equipment and devices which are required by Article 4 of this Order
must be subject to a suitable system of maintenance; must be maintained in an efficient state; in
efficient working order and in good repair. Details of this activity should be recorded.
Whilst a comprehensive survey was not conducted, the following structural fire precautions are
inadequately maintained:
• Some fire resisting doors are missing combined Intumescent cold smoke seals.This could be requested using an informal letter not an enforcement notice. Another misuse of enforcement notice. If any fire strips were removed recently this had been already certified
• Some fire resisting doors have excessive gaps. . This could be requested using an informal letter not an enforcement notice. Another misuse of enforcement notice. I note that we have reasonably decreased what may be perceived as gaps and we have evidence of these works had been already carried out at the point of writing this letter. I also note that in the enforcement notice there is no mention to how narrow the gaps should be and based on what legislation, no exerpt to standards or legislation is mentioned. The request is vague
Effective fire-resisting doors are vital to ensure that the occupants can evacuate
to a place of safety. Correctly specified and well-fitted doors will hold back fire and smoke
preventing escape routes becoming unusable, as well as preventing the fire spreading from one area
to another.Reference that fire strips are meant to prevent smoke to go through is not corroborated by law or case law. We note that fire strips have the only function to seal shut the fire door in case of a fire. Fire strips swell to up to 50 times their size (according to some sources) to seal shut the door only, in the event of a fire. But not to prevent smoke to go through the door. In fact in the UK fire strips without “fur” are allowed and permissable. The fire strips available from shops, screw fix tool station ect without fur will let the smoke though despite how small the gap is between the door frame and the fire door. Several firer doors are fitted with Intumescent strips (without fur) which let the smoke through. This is once again widely accepted in the Uk. Those fire strips that do let smoke go though are still available for sale in the Uk and permissable. Hence, the reason for this requirement not to be backed up with legislation and case law it is because it seems baseless.
Fire Safety Risk Assessment Guide Reference
Sections 19 and 21 Once again this is not a document meant for dwelling houses, but for business. This is not relevant to this type of premises. It is evident by simply reading the introduction to this document.
To summarize
It is very clear that this enforcement notice was not necessary, and it is used as an assertion of power from the officer not used for the public interest. If the officer were acting out of public interest she would have used a reasonable, proactive, informal and collaborative approach.
We deem the correct approach now is to withdraw this enforcement notice voluntarily and engage in an approach that leads to a real interest in the community and not try to childishly use formal powers to assert personal power.
At any point a freedom of information act request an put this enforcement notice into the correct context if needed.
It is our opinion that enforcement notices should be issued only if strictly necessary, corroborating each point by mentioning excerpts of law, or case law, or peer reviewed studies or British standards. The excerpts are essential because this confirm the validity of the request. On the contrary, whenever any legislation is mentioned above it is irrelevant to the type of premises as we have amply seen above.
See enforcement notice below
Download the enforcement notice here – 63 Canwick Road